Additional Options

The consensus definition of autonomy in the psychological literature emphasizes self‐governance through free volition, not separation or independence from others. Since the concept of self may differ cross‐culturally, several researchers have tried to incorporate types of self into the notion of autonomy; however, only the dual model of autonomy has been able to do this while retaining an emphasis on volition. The dual model describes two distinct forms of autonomy—individuating and relating—each with superior function in a specific domain of individual functioning. Individuating autonomy represents a volitional capacity to act against social constraints and offers a route to achieve an independent self‐identity by expressing individualistic attributes and distinctions. Relating autonomy represents a volitional capacity to act by emphasizing the harmony of self‐in‐relation‐to‐others, the quality of interpersonal relationships, and self‐transcendence. These two forms of autonomy have been shown to coexist at the individual level in a Taiwanese sample. This study takes the next step, with a cross‐cultural test of the coexistence and domain superiority hypotheses of individuating and relating autonomy. Participants included 306 college students from Taiwan and 183 college students from the United States. Structural equation modelling by multigroup analyses confirmed the cross‐cultural equivalence of the two‐factor individuating autonomy and relating autonomy measurement model. Across both samples the two forms of autonomy were shown to be mutually inclusive and not exclusive or independent. The domain‐superior function of each form of autonomy was also confirmed cross‐culturally; each form of autonomy has a dominant, but not necessarily exclusive, domain of functioning. Specifically, individuating autonomy was more associated with intrapersonal than interpersonal domain dependent variables, while relating autonomy was more associated with interpersonal than intrapersonal domain dependent variables. Limitations of the study and considerations for future research are discussed.